Just another example of the way the press has gone after Sarah Palin is found in the reaction or over-reaction to the cost of her clothing and shoes and makeup and hair, stuff women young and old just love. I don’t think there’s a woman alive who would not die for a celebrity make-over, even if they didn’t like the look and went back to their old self in a few days.
And I have no problem at all with Sarah looking her best on the campaign trail. Especially since she has said they are not her property and will be given as charity or auctioned with the money given to a good cause. I hope she keeps them, but Sarah has said that she has mainly shopped at a consignment shop in Wasilla and a shoe store she called the name of but I can’t remember right off the bat. But, hey, I have no problem whatsoever if she gets a few things from Neiman Marcus or Saks Fifth Avenue. I’d shop there myself if I could get the chance.
But it is not so much the amount of money spent on the clothes but the tone with which it is reported.
“…..the revelation of the clothing expenditures offers what some Democrats see as a chance not just to win several news cycles during the campaign’s waning days but to severely damage Palin’s image as a small-town, ‘Joe Six-Pack’ American.
“It shows that Palin ain’t like the rest of us,” Tom Matzzie, a Democratic strategist told the Huffington Post, when asked how the party would or could use the issue. “It can help deflate her cultural populism with the Republican base. The plumber’s wife doesn’t go to Nieman’s or Saks.”
or the remarks from “Deal Divas”:
“On ‘What Not to Wear,’ Clinton and Stacy manage to build an entire wardrobe for their client for a mere $5,000.
“But what is truly stunning is that Palin didn’t get more bang for her buck. Her style is smart, but uninspired. Remember the oatmeal jacket from the RNC convention?
“Turns out, it was a $2,500 Valentino. We could have done just as well at Target for a fraction of the cost.
“Perhaps the true tragedy is that our hockey mom didn’t even get to enjoy her glam girl shopping spree. The clothes were picked out by consultants and have to be returned to the GOP, which will be donating them to charity.”
Compared to this from Luxaholics:
Michelle O – First Lady of Fashion
Referring to her “look” for the DNC speech: “Lisa Pinto says of Michelle’s confident look, “Michelle’s style can best be described as timeless. Choosing items that are always modern and chic, Mrs. Obama possesses a natural and unpretentious sophistication, which is reflected in her clothing.”
“Michelle Obama’s style has been nothing short of stellar since her husband announced his candidancy. The dress worn last night by Thakoon, a VOGUE favorite, made it clear why she recently made Vanity Fair magazine’s 69th Annual Best Dressed List. In the article she was dubbed “Commander In Sheath” for sporting fashion forward dresses in classic lines that are not typical First Lady attire.”
And the cost of Michelle’s stellar style? I don’t know. I don’t think the Obama campaign released that little bit of information.
And who could forget the gush-fest Michelle Obama unleashed when she wore a $148 Donna Ricco dress on “The View” and told the audience, “You put a little pin on it and you’ve got something going on.” That little moment overshadowed all the thousand-dollar designer ensembles featuring Thakoon, Isabel Toledo and others that she has worn.
But as I said, it’s not so much the words but the tone. The approval. The disapproval. But on second thought, it is about the words. Michelle’s style is “timeless, modern, and chic.” Sarah, her style is “smart but uninspired.”
And there is no bias? Nah.